Eric Begy 🇺🇲 retweetledi

The IRBM attack on Diego Garcia should be a wake-up call, and gives a lot more credence to the notion that the threat from Iran was truly "imminent." But the debate about imminence has been somewhat ridiculous from the get-go, and it's a product of a pretty obvious category error.
In the civilian context, the law of self-defense requires that the person claiming the privilege be faced with the "imminent" use of force against them. There's an obvious reasons for this: if the use of force is not "imminent," that means you have time to call the cops.
The law tries to minimize vigiliantism because the monopoly of force is supposed to be held by the state. But since the state can't be everywhere at all times, people are allowed to defend themselves and others from the imminent use of force.
For example, say you discover evidence that your enemy has contracted out a murder-for-hire against you, to be completed at some point in the next week. Are you allowed to go to that person's house and kill him in cold blood? No. While the threat of deadly force was real, it wasn't imminent, and you could (and should) call the cops to have him arrested. Now, if the hitman shows up at your door, you can use deadly force, because of course that is an imminent threat.
That logic doesn't work in the foreign affairs context. Once you find out that a foreign nation is trying to build a nuclear capability while calling for "death" to your country, there's no international law police you can call to arrest them. So the idea of waiting to defend yourself from an inevitable threat until that threat is *imminent* is ridiculous.
English


















